Why so many Canon scanner models? And resolution question.

Are you using Canon's scanning software? If so, you might fare better with VueScan. I think
there is a free trial.

--
croy

J. P. Gilliver

2024-02-02 16:12:50 UTC

Post by croy

Are you using Canon's scanning software? If so, you might fare better with VueScan. I think
there is a free trial.

For my requirements, whatever comes will do - I nearly always scan into
IrfanView anyway. I'm aware of VueScan, whose main selling point seems
to be the support of older scanners on newer OSs than the ones current
when they were; although it may have better scanning features too, that
(keeping old kit usable) seems to be its main selling point.
Unfortunately, through no fault of their own, they're too small
(Australian company IIRR?) to be cheap, and most people who've moved up
an OS and found their old scanner will no longer work, find the cost
(about 30 pounds IIRR) is more than the cost of a second-hand scanner at
least as good as the older one that does work with their "new" OS. Of
course, those with scanners with a special ability - maybe some film
ones - and/or expensive resolutions, that probably doesn't apply.

The bottom mostly fell out of the standalone flatbed scanner market, I
suspect, when printer manufacturers started incorporating them. And
printers last even less long than OSs these days.

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

In the beginning, Emacs created God.

Mark Lloyd

2024-02-02 17:02:37 UTC

[snip]

Post by J. P. Gilliver
The bottom mostly fell out of the standalone flatbed scanner market, I
suspect, when printer manufacturers started incorporating them. And
printers last even less long than OSs these days.

I usually don't like combination devices, although a printer/scanner
combination does make it easy to make copies.

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"Few people can be happy unless they hate some other person, nation or
creed." [Bertrand Russell]

J. P. Gilliver

2024-02-02 17:15:24 UTC

Post by Mark Lloyd
[snip]

Post by J. P. Gilliver
The bottom mostly fell out of the standalone flatbed scanner market,
I suspect, when printer manufacturers started incorporating them. And
printers last even less long than OSs these days.

I usually don't like combination devices, although a printer/scanner
combination does make it easy to make copies.

Me neither, because if one part fails, you're stuck with either having
to replace the lot, or having to keep an only-partly-working device.
(And "fails" can include "doesn't work with ..." as well as actually
failing.) And I _believe_ in the case of _some_ printer/scanners, they
won't scan if there's no ink in one of the cartridges.

OK, the copying ability is handy. But not on the whole at the expense of
having to use an ink printer. (There _are_ a few laser/scanner models,
but very few.)

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

There is no honour to be had in not knowing a thing that can be known -
Danny Baker

Frank Slootweg

2024-02-03 16:34:22 UTC

J. P. Gilliver <***@255soft.uk> wrote:
[...]

Post by Mark Lloyd
[snip]

Post by J. P. Gilliver
The bottom mostly fell out of the standalone flatbed scanner market,
I suspect, when printer manufacturers started incorporating them. And
printers last even less long than OSs these days.

I usually don't like combination devices, although a printer/scanner
combination does make it easy to make copies.

Me neither, because if one part fails, you're stuck with either having
to replace the lot, or having to keep an only-partly-working device.
(And "fails" can include "doesn't work with ..." as well as actually
failing.) And I _believe_ in the case of _some_ printer/scanners, they
won't scan if there's no ink in one of the cartridges.
OK, the copying ability is handy. But not on the whole at the expense of
having to use an ink printer. (There _are_ a few laser/scanner models,
but very few.)

Not that I would recommend a printer/scanner - for the reasons
mentioned -, but there are quite a lot of laser/scanner models, at least
from HP. A quick check shows some 15 models.

FWIW, I have an HP LaserJet Pro M1132 MFP, bought in January 2015 for
EUR 99.99. But I bought it for the printing part and just use the
scanner for the odd quick 'photo copy'.

My scanners are an EPSON PERFECTION V30 and a Canon CanoScan 9000F
MarkII slide scanner. The Epson started its life on Vista, then 8.1 and
now 11.

Paul

2024-02-03 17:06:20 UTC

Post by Frank Slootweg
[...]

Post by Mark Lloyd
[snip]

Post by J. P. Gilliver
The bottom mostly fell out of the standalone flatbed scanner market,
I suspect, when printer manufacturers started incorporating them. And
printers last even less long than OSs these days.

I usually don't like combination devices, although a printer/scanner
combination does make it easy to make copies.

Me neither, because if one part fails, you're stuck with either having
to replace the lot, or having to keep an only-partly-working device.
(And "fails" can include "doesn't work with ..." as well as actually
failing.) And I _believe_ in the case of _some_ printer/scanners, they
won't scan if there's no ink in one of the cartridges.
OK, the copying ability is handy. But not on the whole at the expense of
having to use an ink printer. (There _are_ a few laser/scanner models,
but very few.)

Not that I would recommend a printer/scanner - for the reasons
mentioned -, but there are quite a lot of laser/scanner models, at least
from HP. A quick check shows some 15 models.
FWIW, I have an HP LaserJet Pro M1132 MFP, bought in January 2015 for
EUR 99.99. But I bought it for the printing part and just use the
scanner for the odd quick 'photo copy'.
My scanners are an EPSON PERFECTION V30 and a Canon CanoScan 9000F
MarkII slide scanner. The Epson started its life on Vista, then 8.1 and
now 11.

https://www.filmscanner.info/en/CanonCanoScan9000FMark2.html

"Resolution of the CAnon CAnoScan 9000F Mark II

The resolution test using the USAF-testchart yields an actual average
resolution of approximately 1700 ppi according to our resolution chart,
the same value as the predecessor CanoScan 9000F. This comes up to
about 17% of the rated value of 9600ppi. The attained resolution value
is hence still too low to scan 35mm material for an output size larger
than 13x18cm without degradation."

So that's a statement about the properties of the optical path, versus
how many elements the CCD has in it. If set to 9600 DPI, you still get
the 9600 dots, but the sharpness value is not the same.

The same thing happens with analog television. The "effective resolution"
is different than the scan lines used by the TV standard. And I believe
at least some analog TV "test patterns", used to include materials
suitable for the resolution test described above.

https://www.drumscanning.co.uk/about/resolution/

"Manufacturers say they can achieve up to 11,000dpi for the very high end models
(but we’ve tested most and the limit seems to be about 6000dpi for real film).
However, with higher resolutions we get diminishing returns. We’ve tested 35mm,
medium format and large format (5×4 and 10×8), and have found that there is almost
nothing gained above 5000dpi (6000dpi for some 35mm) apart from a cleaner resolving
of grain and for large format film shot at typical apertures, there is usually
little benefit of scanning past 3000dpi...
"

So even with a drum scanner, that gives you some idea where some of the film poops out.

There is actually some film that did benefit from more than 3000, but the
person operating the camera went to a lot of trouble to do that. He was
getting useful results at 4800 optical limits. This was someone resolving
blades of grass in his photographs ("nerd alert!"). But it's a hobby.
and the grass didn't mind.

Paul

J. P. Gilliver

2024-02-03 21:42:36 UTC

[]

Post by Frank Slootweg
Not that I would recommend a printer/scanner - for the reasons
mentioned -, but there are quite a lot of laser/scanner models, at least
from HP. A quick check shows some 15 models.

Interesting. Good. (Last time I looked - quite a few years ago - there
were some printer/scanner models where the printer was laser, but not
colour. The scanner was colour.)

Post by Frank Slootweg
FWIW, I have an HP LaserJet Pro M1132 MFP, bought in January 2015 for
EUR 99.99. But I bought it for the printing part and just use the
scanner for the odd quick 'photo copy'.

Mine's a Samsung CLP775 - bought for 25 pounds, and I knew each
cartridge would cost me more than that when it ran out! (Which it did,
but not much more.) It's a huge thing - about a two foot cube, and
weighs - well, I'm not sure I could lift it now. But it's a nice machine
- does double sided, and (although I know that's the driver) booklet
printing. And I know it works with at least Windows 10, as it did with
the council laptop I had.

Post by Frank Slootweg
My scanners are an EPSON PERFECTION V30 and a Canon CanoScan 9000F
MarkII slide scanner. The Epson started its life on Vista, then 8.1 and

Very nice. I have some film/slide scanners, and did have the 656 until
it played up.

Post by Frank Slootweg
now 11.

That's lucky!

Post by Paul
https://www.filmscanner.info/en/CanonCanoScan9000FMark2.html
"Resolution of the CAnon CAnoScan 9000F Mark II
The resolution test using the USAF-testchart yields an actual average
resolution of approximately 1700 ppi according to our resolution chart,
the same value as the predecessor CanoScan 9000F. This comes up to
about 17% of the rated value of 9600ppi. The attained resolution value

That's what the review I came across said - that some scanners, even if
they have a high sensor resolution (we're not talking silly
interpolation here), don't have optics good enough to use it.

Post by Paul
is hence still too low to scan 35mm material for an output size larger
than 13x18cm without degradation."
So that's a statement about the properties of the optical path, versus
how many elements the CCD has in it. If set to 9600 DPI, you still get
the 9600 dots, but the sharpness value is not the same.

Indeed - little point, just makes a bigger file (and slower scanning,
too) - not that different from interpolation, in fact.

Post by Paul
The same thing happens with analog television. The "effective resolution"
is different than the scan lines used by the TV standard. And I believe
at least some analog TV "test patterns", used to include materials
suitable for the resolution test described above.

Well, most test cards had resolution grids - usually vertical, but
sometimes diagonal. The situation was somewhat different: vertical
resolution _was_ the number of lines (less a few for flyback: here in
625-land, I think vertical was 576i; I'm not sure what it was in
525-land - probably 480, as I presume that's where the old computer
monitor number came from). But horizontal depended on the bandwidth of
the allocated channel or recording equipment; in 625-land, UK had about
6 MHz broadcast channels (rest of EU 5.5), and home video recorders
about 3 MHz (V2000 and Betamax) or 2.5 (VHS).

Post by Paul
https://www.drumscanning.co.uk/about/resolution/
"Manufacturers say they can achieve up to 11,000dpi for the very high end models
(but we’ve tested most and the limit seems to be about 6000dpi for real film).
However, with higher resolutions we get diminishing returns. We’ve tested 35mm,
medium format and large format (5×4 and 10×8), and have found that there is almost
nothing gained above 5000dpi (6000dpi for some 35mm) apart from a cleaner resolving
of grain and for large format film shot at typical apertures, there is usually
little benefit of scanning past 3000dpi...
"

Yes, above a certain point, you just get a better picture of the film
grains!

Post by Paul
So even with a drum scanner, that gives you some idea where some of the film poops out.
There is actually some film that did benefit from more than 3000, but the
person operating the camera went to a lot of trouble to do that. He was
getting useful results at 4800 optical limits. This was someone resolving
blades of grass in his photographs ("nerd alert!"). But it's a hobby.
and the grass didn't mind.
Paul

Depends on the "speed" of the film; in general, high speed (i. e. works
with low light) had larger grains. About the lowest speed generally
available in "35mm" (135 format) was 25ASA, with 50 or 64 being
commoner, and 100, 200, and 400 widely available, especially in B/W. (I
once got hold of a roll of 1000 ASA; it was good for some long shots I
took of an indoor ice show, but definitely had a "sparkly" appearance.)
For home movies - 8mm - 40ASA (super 8) and 25 (standard 8) were the
norm - the tiny size of the film frames meant it had to be fine-grain
film; this was compensated for by not needing a huge lens to get a
relatively large amount of light onto the small area, and also moving
images make grain less noticeable. (The old camera I started with - the
same or a very similar model to the one Mr. Zapruder used - had
autoexposure for 10 ASA film, and when I was using it - 1970s - there
was one make still available at that speed [Perutz].) There were slower
(finer grain) films for specialised applications, such as document
copying where exposure time wasn't a problem, and I presume for
microfilm and microfiche use.

But for films used in "normal" cameras - either "35mm" [or Instamatic]
or 120 format - what they said, the grain size normally used was such
that 3000-4800 DPI resolution is probably the most you'd need. Certainly
for prints.

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

one can't go from `supposed crackpot ideas have been right before' to `we
should
take this latest crackpot idea onboard without making it fight for acceptance
like all the previous ones'. - Richard Caley, 2002 February 11 00:02:28

Java Jive

2024-02-02 17:26:23 UTC

Post by croy

I have a CanoScan LiDE 300 with a similar problem, but with mine, once
it gets to the far end, it just stops, becoming completely unresponsive.
See notes appended for a detailed history of this complex fault, as well
as a review of my current best scanner.

Here I will summarise some considerations when choosing a scanner ...

1) What is your source material? In particular ...

A) Do you need to scan photographic material, particularly negatives
& slides, and if either of these, what sizes are they? Problem sizes
are old 120 film sizes and larger. Mid-price scanners may have some
sort of attachment that can scan 35mm film and perhaps smaller such as
Instamatic, but not anything larger, to get which, you may have to go up
market.

B) Do you need to scan large quantities of similar sized material
where an Automatic Document Feeder mechanism would be useful? Note that
most ADFs tend to be geared to standard paper sizes, usually A4/Letter.

C) Do you need to scan large documents, such as old legal documents,
piecemeal and stitch the results together? If so, absolutely you must
be able to completely remove the lid of the scanner.

2) What do you want from the results? In particular ...

A) Do you want to reproduce family photo albums, either virtually or
physically, and if virtually, what sort of format are you going to use?
A common one is PDF, so it might be useful if the scanning software can
produce PDF output directly.

B) Do you want to produce text output? If so, you need Optical
Character Recognition (OCR) as an output option from the software.

Etc, etc ... This is probably not a comprehensive list, search online
for other considerations. In the end I replaced my CanoScan at some
extra-than-originally-intended expense with an Epson V900, which has
turned out pretty well, notwithstanding some minor issues. Here's the
Amazon review of it I wrote, which also mentions aspects of my old HP
scanner as well as the CanoScan ...

https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/customer-reviews/R23V41X74KLJ7U/ref=cm_cr_dp_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=B002OEBMRU

Post by croy
Are you using Canon's scanning software? If so, you might fare better with VueScan. I think
there is a free trial.

Almost certainly it's a hardware fault, in which case I'm afraid this
suggestion won't make an iota of difference ...

I suspect the problems with my CanoScan LiDE 300 were at least partly
self-induced, in three ways:
1) Failure to lock the mechanism before transport in the car;
2) In its original box, probably it was upside down in the car;
3) Unwisely removing an apparently 'useless' internal label.

They began when I travelled to relatives hoping to scan their stuff for
the family archive, only to find that I'd forgotten to lock the
transport mechanism of the CanoScan before packing it for the journey,
and further, though in its original packaging, probably it was upside
down in the car. Not only was the underside of the glass covered in
dust from ancient documents I'd scanned in the past, but so also was the
scanner head, because I was getting lines, not just specks, across all
the scans. I tried dismantling and cleaning it. Afterwards, some of
the plastic surround no longer locked properly back into place, though I
didn't think I'd broken any catches, certainly I'd tried to be careful
not to do so, rather I think the problem was the thing was actually held
together by double-sided sticky tape, which I'd had to remove. FFS!!!
can't we go back to using screws to assemble things???!!! Worse still,
although the cleaning had got rid of the specs & the worst of the lines,
it had not removed the faintest of the lines, and further each scan was
pausing one or two times and then restarting, thus tripling the time
being taken for each scan. Note that at this point the machine was
still working, but only just.

Thus I had to bring all the relatives' documents home to scan them with
my old HP scanner and the new Epson one purchased since as described,
but, when I got home, I had another longer look at the CanoScan ...

I dismantled it again, and underneath the plastic lip overlapping the
glass at the front of the scanner, there was piece of strange white tape
with a black mark, which, being apparently slightly damaged, I decided
to remove completely. After I'd cleaned the insides thoroughly again, I
re-assembled it, and that's when I first had the problem of the carriage
progressing all the way to the back, stopping, and the machine being
completely unresponsive thereafter.

So I wondered if the tape has been some sort of marker which the
firmware was looking for to determine where was the start of the
scanning area and therefore where to park the head when idle and whence
to measure everything when working. I tried replacing it as best I
could, but the problem persisted. Despite the failure of the attempted
fix, I still think there may be something to this theory. However,
apparently behaviour of this sort is a common problem with CanoScans.
Try searching online for something appropriate[*], and you'll get lots
of hits, including where it happened with entirely new machines.

* I did try searching my browser history to see if my searches were
still there as suggestions for you to try, but they weren't.

So it was time to get a replacement, after some deliberation I went
first for a CanoScan LiDE 400, a newer model than the one I'd already
got, on the ground of ease of use, which then was cheapest in Argos,
even after driving 300 miles to Fraserburgh & back to collect the
nearest one. However that developed faint stripes in the scan during its
first session of use, leading me to wonder if the faintest stripes in my
LiDE 300 had been there a long time, maybe even ex-factory, but, due to
them only being visible on unusually dark photographic source material,
simply I'd never noticed them before (they're where the side arrows
indicate, very faint but definitely there, and definitely from the
scanner, as the first test shows; note that each file is about 13-15MB,
so will take time to load):

Brand new CanoScan LiDE 400, source material hard up against one side of
the glass ...

www.macfh.co.uk/Temp/CanoScanLiDE400Scanner_1.png

... but move it to the other side of the glass and the line has moved on
the picture, but stayed in the same position relative to the glass, so
it's a feature of the scanner, not the source material ...

www.macfh.co.uk/Temp/CanoScanLiDE400Scanner_2.png

... and the old one was even worse, this was the scan where I'd first
noticed the problem, taken when the scanner was still just about
working, at my relatives:

www.macfh.co.uk/Temp/CanoScanLiDE300Scanner.png

So the new one went back to Argos, and I got my money back, and bought
the Epson mentioned above, which has given me pretty good results.

--
Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

J. P. Gilliver

2024-02-02 19:22:45 UTC

Post by croy

Post by J. P. Gilliver
I'm looking to replace my Canon 656U (same as 650U other than silver

[]

Post by Java Jive
I have a CanoScan LiDE 300 with a similar problem, but with mine, once
it gets to the far end, it just stops, becoming completely
unresponsive. See notes appended for a detailed history of this complex
fault, as well as a review of my current best scanner.
Here I will summarise some considerations when choosing a scanner ...
1) What is your source material? In particular ...
A) Do you need to scan photographic material, particularly negatives
& slides, and if either of these, what sizes are they? Problem sizes
are old 120 film sizes and larger. Mid-price scanners may have some
sort of attachment that can scan 35mm film and perhaps smaller such as
Instamatic, but not anything larger, to get which, you may have to go
up market.

For negatives and slides, I have (at least two I think, because I bought
one "new" when it was reduced to something ridiculously low and it
seemed daft not to get it as a backup) scanners specifically for those.
I don't think I've ever actually used them yet, but I know I have the
negatives so they're in the "to do" cloud! (I definitely don't have
enough tuits for my remaining lifespan!)

I've often wondered - within the budget/medium price range, _do_ you get
better results from scanning the negatives, or from scanning prints made
when the photo-processing industry was at its height? From one point of
view, you ought to always get better results from the original
negatives, and certainly less cropping (prints from the average
high/main street shop were _always_ not from the whole negative); but
from the other point of view, unless you have a _very_ expensive
negative scanner, you'll get more pixels - and thus more detail - from
the print. For the average picture anyway - I know for dark or light
images the print may have lost shadow or highlight detail.

I don't have any large-format negatives like 120. (I do have one strip
of three negatives in the format (828 I think it's called) my dad's old
camera took - 35mm wide film, but _without_ perforations, so the images
were bigger than normal "35mm" film (I think that normal format is
actually called 135).

You say "smaller such as Instamatic". "Instamatic" actually covered two
formats, both coming in a cartridge you just dropped into the camera (no
placing perforations over sprockets): 126 and 110. 126 was the default
budget format throughout the 1970s, and for that reason, I'm puzzled
that most "negative scanners" don't handle it properly. Normal 135
format film uses 35mm wide film, with perforations down both sides, and
(IIRR) 18 by 24mm images down the middle between the perforations. 126
also uses 35mm wide film, but _without_ perforations down both sides -
it has one, smaller, hole, once per frame, on one (the "bottom") side
only. (The cameras had a pawl that detected that, to detect/determine
whether the film had been would on to the next frame position.) The
images were square, 28mm wide, extending from just above the (smaller)
hole, almost to the opposite edge of the film. Thus, the negative
holders that come with most such scanners - which have plastic that
covers where the perforations would be along both edges - blank off (a
little strip at the bottom and) a lot of the top of the image, and also
tend to have a problem with the width. _Some_ scanners come with
126-format holders, but very few. (I think a lot of them have a sensor -
basically a camera - that only _looks_ at the central 18 by 24 mm area
anyway.) 110 format was a miniature version of the same idea - used I
think 16mm film, but again not perforated like 16mm movie film but one
hole per frame at one side only (the images were rectangular though, not
square). It made for very small cameras, at least compared to the normal
135 and 126 format ones of the day! I had a Pentax SLR for the format, a
lovely little thing (unfortunately the small film format meant it didn't
do it justice).

Post by Java Jive
B) Do you need to scan large quantities of similar sized material
where an Automatic Document Feeder mechanism would be useful? Note
that most ADFs tend to be geared to standard paper sizes, usually
A4/Letter.

No, I don't have need for such.

Post by Java Jive
C) Do you need to scan large documents, such as old legal documents,
piecemeal and stitch the results together? If so, absolutely you must
be able to completely remove the lid of the scanner.

I don't _think_ that will be a problem.

Post by Java Jive
2) What do you want from the results? In particular ...
A) Do you want to reproduce family photo albums, either virtually or
physically, and if virtually, what sort of format are you going to use?
A common one is PDF, so it might be useful if the scanning software can
produce PDF output directly.

If I did want to do such a thing, I'd almost certainly want to edit it
first, so I'd do that in a word processor (probably Word, sorry - though
I do use the 2003 version), and then "print" it to PDF (I use PDF995,
but there are several such "printer"s).

Post by Java Jive
B) Do you want to produce text output? If so, you need Optical
Character Recognition (OCR) as an output option from the software.

I _think_ that comes with most of them these days - but if it didn't,
there are both free and paid-for OCR utilities around. I can't at the
moment think of anywhere I'd want to do that anyway - certainly it won't
affect my choice of scanner at this point.

Post by Java Jive
Etc, etc ... This is probably not a comprehensive list, search online
for other considerations. In the end I replaced my CanoScan at some
extra-than-originally-intended expense with an Epson V900, which has
turned out pretty well, notwithstanding some minor issues. Here's the
Amazon review of it I wrote, which also mentions aspects of my old HP
scanner as well as the CanoScan ...
https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/customer-reviews/R23V41X74KLJ7U/ref=cm_cr_dp
_d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=B002OEBMRU

Thanks - interesting.

Post by croy
Are you using Canon's scanning software? If so, you might fare
better with VueScan. I think
there is a free trial.

Almost certainly it's a hardware fault, in which case I'm afraid this
suggestion won't make an iota of difference ...

Yes, definitely a hardware fault - it does it as soon as I apply power
(with the USB cable) to it, before I've invoked the software.

VueScan is a Good Thing in that it enables old scanners to continue to
be used; however, in my case, my old scanner has died, and the number of
scanner models that _do_ have W7-32 drivers available is such that
choosing one that _doesn't_, and then getting VueScan to make it go,
wouldn't be cost-effective. (Yes, I know VueScan also offers an extra -
and/or better - "scanning experience", but it's its
make-old-scanners-work feature that's its main thing.)

Post by Java Jive
I suspect the problems with my CanoScan LiDE 300 were at least partly

[]

Post by Java Jive
all the scans. I tried dismantling and cleaning it. Afterwards, some

I looked at my 656, but couldn't see how to dismantle it, without
applying more force in places I wasn't willing to, plus the concern that
if I did open it, something might move that I didn't spot, and
thenceforward not work properly.
[]

Post by Java Jive
actually held together by double-sided sticky tape, which I'd had to

Or stickle-sided dubby tape, as a late friend called it!

Post by Java Jive
remove. FFS!!! can't we go back to using screws to assemble

Very much agree! (Another dislike is snap-together things.)
[]

Post by Java Jive
I dismantled it again, and underneath the plastic lip overlapping the
glass at the front of the scanner, there was piece of strange white
tape with a black mark, which, being apparently slightly damaged, I
decided to remove completely. After I'd cleaned the insides thoroughly
again, I re-assembled it, and that's when I first had the problem of
the carriage progressing all the way to the back, stopping, and the
machine being completely unresponsive thereafter.

I reckon I have something similar - it's not detecting some
index/feedback mark.
[]

Post by Java Jive
apparently behaviour of this sort is a common problem with CanoScans.

That's worrying, as the majority of the machines I'm looking at are
CanoScans.
[]

Post by Java Jive
So it was time to get a replacement, after some deliberation I went
first for a CanoScan LiDE 400, a newer model than the one I'd already

A couple of the ones I'm monitoring are 400s. It looks pleasing
aesthetically.

Post by Java Jive
got, on the ground of ease of use, which then was cheapest in Argos,
even after driving 300 miles to Fraserburgh & back to collect the

Ouch! No online supplier willing to post to you? 300 miles is a lot of
fuel! (Or were you going that way anyway, for something else?)
[]

Post by Java Jive
So the new one went back to Argos, and I got my money back, and bought
the Epson mentioned above, which has given me pretty good results.

Have you used it just as a flatbed, or have you used the negative/slide
functionality?

Basically, I'm just after a replacement for my old 656U, as long as it
works with 7-32; obviously, if I get something with extra features (such
as film/slide handling) I won't say no, but only within a low price
range: I've already got expensive toys I don't have time to play with!
(The latest being a Winait [same as Wolverine, Reflecta, and other
names] scanner for 8mm film.)

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Today, I dare say more people know who starred as /The Vicar of Dibley/ than
know the name of the vicar of their local parish. - Clive Anderson, Radio
Times 15-21 January 2011.

Java Jive

2024-02-02 20:41:52 UTC

On Fri, 2 Feb 2024 15:10:27 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver"

I'm looking to replace my Canon 656U (same as 650U other than silver

[]

Post by Java Jive
I have a CanoScan LiDE 300 with a similar problem, but with mine, once
it gets to the far end, it just stops, becoming completely
unresponsive. See notes appended for a detailed history of this
complex fault, as well as a review of my current best scanner.
Here I will summarise some considerations when choosing a scanner ...
1) What is your source material? In particular ...
A) Do you need to scan photographic material, particularly negatives
& slides, and if either of these, what sizes are they? Problem sizes
are old 120 film sizes and larger. Mid-price scanners may have some
sort of attachment that can scan 35mm film and perhaps smaller such as
Instamatic, but not anything larger, to get which, you may have to go
up market.

In my experience, as long as both are in equal condition (in other words
without either being degraded markedly by time), you'll get better
results from the negative. There's the cropping that you mention, but
also the fact that in many prints the images were constructed from a dot
pattern that interacts with the resolution of the scanner. Here's an
example cropped from a family wedding photo (I can't show the whole
photo because I'd have to ask the permission of the people involved)
which I will have to rescan next time I visit those relatives:

Loading Image...

A similar thing can happen with photos in old newspaper cuttings &
printed illustrations in old books.

Post by J. P. Gilliver
I don't have any large-format negatives like 120. (I do have one strip
of three negatives in the format (828 I think it's called) my dad's old
camera took - 35mm wide film, but _without_ perforations, so the images
were bigger than normal "35mm" film (I think that normal format is
actually called 135).

I have something similar in the negatives taken by my old Brownie camera.

Post by J. P. Gilliver
You say "smaller such as Instamatic". "Instamatic" actually covered two
formats, both coming in a cartridge you just dropped into the camera (no
placing perforations over sprockets): 126 and 110. 126 was the default
budget format throughout the 1970s, and for that reason, I'm puzzled
that most "negative scanners" don't handle it properly. Normal 135
format film uses 35mm wide film, with perforations down both sides, and
(IIRR) 18 by 24mm images down the middle between the perforations. 126
also uses 35mm wide film, but _without_ perforations down both sides -
it has one, smaller, hole, once per frame, on one (the "bottom") side
only. (The cameras had a pawl that detected that, to detect/determine
whether the film had been would on to the next frame position.) The
images were square, 28mm wide, extending from just above the (smaller)
hole, almost to the opposite edge of the film. Thus, the negative
holders that come with most such scanners - which have plastic that
covers where the perforations would be along both edges - blank off (a
little strip at the bottom and) a lot of the top of the image, and also
tend to have a problem with the width. _Some_ scanners come with
126-format holders, but very few. (I think a lot of them have a sensor -
basically a camera - that only _looks_ at the central 18 by 24 mm area
anyway.) 110 format was a miniature version of the same idea - used I
think 16mm film, but again not perforated like 16mm movie film but one
hole per frame at one side only (the images were rectangular though, not
square). It made for very small cameras, at least compared to the normal
135 and 126 format ones of the day! I had a Pentax SLR for the format, a
lovely little thing (unfortunately the small film format meant it didn't
do it justice).

You're probably right. Although I once worked in a photo-processing lab
as a gap year job, it was so long ago that I'm forgetting details like
the Instamatic sizes.

The new Epson does 35mm, the Brownie, & 120 negs all very well, but I
think the only Instamatic stuff I still have is from my ex-wife's camera
- of a Scottish walking holiday we took together, and a few of us
fooling about at home - which I scanned with the old HP, and probably
won't bother to rescan on the new machine.

No, I don't have need for such.

I don't _think_ that will be a problem.

Post by Java Jive
2) What do you want from the results? In particular ...
A) Do you want to reproduce family photo albums, either virtually or
physically, and if virtually, what sort of format are you going to
use? A common one is PDF, so it might be useful if the scanning
software can produce PDF output directly.

Yes, I use PDF-XChange Viewer, but there's some ability to do more than
just view. For example, it can OCR (see next point) which can be very
useful for scans of old historical printed sources which sometimes have
been made available online as raw scans, without having been OCR-ed.

Post by Java Jive
B) Do you want to produce text output? If so, you need Optical
Character Recognition (OCR) as an output option from the software.

Thanks - interesting.

Are you using Canon's scanning software? If so, you might fare
better with VueScan. I think
there is a free trial.

Almost certainly it's a hardware fault, in which case I'm afraid this
suggestion won't make an iota of difference ...

Yes, definitely a hardware fault - it does it as soon as I apply power
(with the USB cable) to it, before I've invoked the software.
VueScan is a Good Thing in that it enables old scanners to continue to
be used; however, in my case, my old scanner has died, and the number of
scanner models that _do_ have W7-32 drivers available is such that
choosing one that _doesn't_, and then getting VueScan to make it go,
wouldn't be cost-effective. (Yes, I know VueScan also offers an extra -
and/or better - "scanning experience", but it's its
make-old-scanners-work feature that's its main thing.)

Post by Java Jive
I suspect the problems with my CanoScan LiDE 300 were at least partly

[]

Post by Java Jive
all the scans. I tried dismantling and cleaning it. Afterwards, some

Post by Java Jive
actually held together by double-sided sticky tape, which I'd had to

Or stickle-sided dubby tape, as a late friend called it!

Post by Java Jive
remove. FFS!!! can't we go back to using screws to assemble

Very much agree! (Another dislike is snap-together things.)
[]

Post by Java Jive
I dismantled it again, and underneath the plastic lip overlapping the
glass at the front of the scanner, there was piece of strange white
tape with a black mark, which, being apparently slightly damaged, I
decided to remove completely. After I'd cleaned the insides
thoroughly again, I re-assembled it, and that's when I first had the
problem of the carriage progressing all the way to the back, stopping,
and the machine being completely unresponsive thereafter.

I reckon I have something similar - it's not detecting some
index/feedback mark.
[]

Post by Java Jive
apparently behaviour of this sort is a common problem with CanoScans.

That's worrying, as the majority of the machines I'm looking at are
CanoScans.
[]

Post by Java Jive
So it was time to get a replacement, after some deliberation I went
first for a CanoScan LiDE 400, a newer model than the one I'd already

A couple of the ones I'm monitoring are 400s. It looks pleasing
aesthetically.

Post by Java Jive
got, on the ground of ease of use, which then was cheapest in Argos,
even after driving 300 miles to Fraserburgh & back to collect the

Ouch! No online supplier willing to post to you? 300 miles is a lot of
fuel! (Or were you going that way anyway, for something else?)

No, I wanted it in a hurry, and that was the nearest to Lairg, but it
turned out to be a question of more haste less speed, because I had to
return it, as described, although that at least was only to Inverness,
which I visit fairly regularly anyway.

Post by Java Jive
So the new one went back to Argos, and I got my money back, and bought
the Epson mentioned above, which has given me pretty good results.

Have you used it just as a flatbed, or have you used the negative/slide
functionality?

Yes, read the fairly comprehensive Amazon review that I linked in my OP.

Post by J. P. Gilliver
Basically, I'm just after a replacement for my old 656U, as long as it
works with 7-32; obviously, if I get something with extra features (such
as film/slide handling) I won't say no, but only within a low price
range: I've already got expensive toys I don't have time to play with!
(The latest being a Winait [same as Wolverine, Reflecta, and other
names] scanner for 8mm film.)

The Epson may well be too expensive for you then, but read the review,
and I'll answer any further questions you may have about it then, if I
can, but read it first, because there's no point in my regurgitating it
all here when most people won't be interested in reading it.

--
Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

J. P. Gilliver

2024-02-02 21:38:57 UTC

[]

Post by J. P. Gilliver
I've often wondered - within the budget/medium price range, _do_ you
get better results from scanning the negatives, or from scanning
prints made when the photo-processing industry was at its height?

[]

Post by Java Jive
In my experience, as long as both are in equal condition (in other
words without either being degraded markedly by time), you'll get
better results from the negative. There's the cropping that you
mention, but also the fact that in many prints the images were
constructed from a dot pattern that interacts with the resolution of
the scanner. Here's an example cropped from a family wedding photo (I
can't show the whole photo because I'd have to ask the permission of
the people involved) which I will have to rescan next time I visit
https://www.macfh.co.uk/Temp/Print_Scan_Strobe.png
A similar thing can happen with photos in old newspaper cuttings &
printed illustrations in old books.

Yes, I'm familiar with the dot patterns in (almost) any sort of images
printed with ink (very coarse in newspapers, fine in books), but prints
made from negatives? Is your wedding photo one made fairly recently,
where some electronic scanning was involved? I'm pretty sure all the
prints in my family's records will have been made by shining light
through the negatives onto photographic paper then developing it, i. e.
no dot _pattern_ - just the grain of the negative and paper.
[]

Post by Java Jive
You're probably right. Although I once worked in a photo-processing
lab as a gap year job, it was so long ago that I'm forgetting details
like the Instamatic sizes.

The common - 126 - Instamatic format produced square pictures; that was
the way to recognise it (AFAIK no other format did, apart from one
version of the 120 roll film [the other was rectangular], and I don't
think people would have been bringing 120 roll film into high/main
street print shops).
[]

Post by J. P. Gilliver
though I do use the 2003 version), and then "print" it to PDF (I use
PDF995, but there are several such "printer"s).

[]

Post by J. P. Gilliver
Have you used it just as a flatbed, or have you used the
negative/slide functionality?

Yes, read the fairly comprehensive Amazon review that I linked in my OP.

I've read the one that starts "There's an unusual thing." and mentions
prompt delivery. (If that's not the right one, I don't know how to
search Amazon reviews for a specific.)

Post by J. P. Gilliver
Basically, I'm just after a replacement for my old 656U, as long as
it works with 7-32; obviously, if I get something with extra features
(such as film/slide handling) I won't say no, but only within a low
price range: I've already got expensive toys I don't have time to
play with! (The latest being a Winait [same as Wolverine, Reflecta,
and other names] scanner for 8mm film.)

The Epson may well be too expensive for you then, but read the review,

Wow, just looked at the new price on Amazon - 12 or more times what I'm
thinking of spending!

Post by Java Jive
and I'll answer any further questions you may have about it then, if I
can, but read it first, because there's no point in my regurgitating it
all here when most people won't be interested in reading it.

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.
-Thomas Henry Huxley, biologist (1825-1895)

Java Jive

2024-02-02 23:01:50 UTC

I've often wondered - within the budget/medium price range, _do_ you
get better results from scanning the negatives, or from scanning
prints made when the photo-processing industry was at its height?

In my experience, as long as both are in equal condition (in other
words without either being degraded markedly by time), you'll get
better results from the negative. There's the cropping that you
mention, but also the fact that in many prints the images were
constructed from a dot pattern that interacts with the resolution of
the scanner. Here's an example cropped from a family wedding photo (I
can't show the whole photo because I'd have to ask the permission of
the people involved) which I will have to rescan next time I visit
https://www.macfh.co.uk/Temp/Print_Scan_Strobe.png
A similar thing can happen with photos in old newspaper cuttings &
printed illustrations in old books.

I have enlargements from the 60s or 70s which show this effect.

Have you used it just as a flatbed, or have you used the
negative/slide functionality?

Yes, read the fairly comprehensive Amazon review that I linked in my OP.

I've read the one that starts "There's an unusual thing." and mentions
prompt delivery. (If that's not the right one, I don't know how to
search Amazon reviews for a specific.)

That's the one, but then you should have known that I'd used the scanner
for slides.

--
Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

J. P. Gilliver

2024-02-02 23:21:25 UTC

[]

Post by Java Jive
In my experience, as long as both are in equal condition (in other
words without either being degraded markedly by time), you'll get
better results from the negative. There's the cropping that you
mention, but also the fact that in many prints the images were
constructed from a dot pattern that interacts with the resolution of
the scanner. Here's an example cropped from a family wedding photo
(I can't show the whole photo because I'd have to ask the permission
https://www.macfh.co.uk/Temp/Print_Scan_Strobe.png
A similar thing can happen with photos in old newspaper cuttings &
printed illustrations in old books.

Yes, I'm familiar with the dot patterns in (almost) any sort of

[]

Post by J. P. Gilliver
developing it, i. e. no dot _pattern_ - just the grain of the
negative and paper.

I have enlargements from the 60s or 70s which show this effect.

Interesting! What do you think is the cause? I remember seeing - though
not from which decade - a sort of hexagon patterning in the emulsion on
some prints (deliberate - I think it was some deliberate effect - maybe
trying to look like canvas?), but I think that was a lot coarser than
the pattern you illustrated, which looks more like a very fine screen
matrix as used in printing.
[]

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

She didn't strike me as much of a reader. It's never a good sign if someone
has a leaflet with a bookmark in it. - Sarah Millican in Rdio Times, 17-23
November 2012

Java Jive

2024-02-03 00:56:10 UTC

Post by J. P. Gilliver
[]

Post by Java Jive
In my experience, as long as both are in equal condition (in other
words without either being degraded markedly by time), you'll get
better results from the negative. There's the cropping that you
mention, but also the fact that in many prints the images were
constructed from a dot pattern that interacts with the resolution of
the scanner. Here's an example cropped from a family wedding photo
(I can't show the whole photo because I'd have to ask the
permission of the people involved) which I will have to rescan next
https://www.macfh.co.uk/Temp/Print_Scan_Strobe.png
A similar thing can happen with photos in old newspaper cuttings &
printed illustrations in old books.

Yes, I'm familiar with the dot patterns in (almost) any sort of

[]

developing it, i. e. no dot _pattern_ - just the grain of the
negative and paper.

I have enlargements from the 60s or 70s which show this effect.

Actually, TBF, those show a similar but slightly different problem, as
described below ...

Post by J. P. Gilliver
Interesting! What do you think is the cause? I remember seeing - though
not from which decade - a sort of hexagon patterning in the emulsion on
some prints (deliberate - I think it was some deliberate effect - maybe
trying to look like canvas?), but I think that was a lot coarser than
the pattern you illustrated, which looks more like a very fine screen
matrix as used in printing.

I think it's particularly noticeable on those that were done on matt as
opposed to glossy paper. I preferred matt paper because with glossy
paper you tended to just see reflections of windows in the room, etc.
However, that preference proved a disadvantage when I came to scan the
photos many years later. While for most of them I still had the negs
which gave better results anyway, because having been kept tidied away
in the interim they tended to be less scratched, nevertheless there were
one or two for which the negs were missing - I think in the interim
I'd probably noticed that they'd degraded beyond use and had to throw
them away - and for those I have the dot pattern of the matt paper in
the resulting scan. Here's an example, the photo was taken in the early
'60s, but I think the enlargement that was scanned was most probably
made around 1970 when I was working at the photo-lab. The effect is
nothing like as noticeable as in the last example, but if you download
the image and zoom in to it far enough, you can see quite clearly the
dot pattern of the matt surface of the paper. This image took quite a
lot of cleaning up, and when doing so I had to ensure not only that the
colour copied from elsewhere in the image was a good match, but that the
dot pattern matched as well, otherwise the fix was significantly more
obvious:

www.macfh.co.uk/Temp/Pap_Of_Glencoe_From_Across_Loch_Leven.png

--
Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

J. P. Gilliver

2024-02-03 07:27:57 UTC

Post by J. P. Gilliver
[]

[]

Yes, I'm familiar with the dot patterns in (almost) any sort of

[]

developing it, i. e. no dot _pattern_ - just the grain of the
negative and paper.

I have enlargements from the 60s or 70s which show this effect.

Actually, TBF, those show a similar but slightly different problem, as
described below ...

Post by J. P. Gilliver
Interesting! What do you think is the cause? I remember seeing -
though not from which decade - a sort of hexagon patterning in the
emulsion on some prints (deliberate - I think it was some deliberate
effect - maybe trying to look like canvas?), but I think that was a
lot coarser than the pattern you illustrated, which looks more like a
very fine screen matrix as used in printing.

Me too - not sure if for that reason, or that glossy ones seemed to show
fingerprints much more; also felt like the glossy surface was an extra
something between you and the image (though the opposite may have been
the case, see below).

Post by Java Jive
However, that preference proved a disadvantage when I came to scan the
photos many years later. While for most of them I still had the negs

[]

Post by Java Jive
paper in the resulting scan. Here's an example, the photo was taken in
the early '60s, but I think the enlargement that was scanned was most
probably made around 1970 when I was working at the photo-lab. The
effect is nothing like as noticeable as in the last example, but if you
download the image and zoom in to it far enough, you can see quite
clearly the dot pattern of the matt surface of the paper. This image

Yes, I can - a definite hexagonal grid. Are you saying that all matt
prints exhibit this - i. e., the natural finish of prints is glossy, and
to get matt they had to be (presumably a mechanical process) embossed
with a pattern like that? Interesting, if so.
[]

Post by Java Jive
www.macfh.co.uk/Temp/Pap_Of_Glencoe_From_Across_Loch_Leven.png

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

They'd never heard of me; they didn't like me; they didn't like my speech;
they tutted and clucked and looked at their watches and eventually I sat down
to a thunderous lack of applause. - Barry Norman (on preceding Douglas Bader),
in RT 6-12 July 2013

Java Jive

2024-02-03 12:09:13 UTC

Post by Java Jive
Here's an example, the photo was taken
in the early '60s, but I think the enlargement that was scanned was
most probably made around 1970 when I was working at the photo-lab.
The effect is nothing like as noticeable as in the last example, but
if you download the image and zoom in to it far enough, you can see
quite clearly the dot pattern of the matt surface of the paper.

That I can't answer, I just know that wherever I had to use a print
rather than a neg, for reasons already given including but not only the
above, the results weren't as good.

Post by Java Jive
www.macfh.co.uk/Temp/Pap_Of_Glencoe_From_Across_Loch_Leven.png

--
Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

g***@aol.com

2024-02-02 15:53:23 UTC

Post by J. P. Gilliver
I'm looking to replace my Canon 656U (same as 650U other than silver
case), which has developed the fault that whenever powered (by USB), it
starts to track, until it reaches the end where it keeps going, making
an unhappy noise. (It went through a phase where I could, by
unplugging/replugging it and/or fiddling with the software, when I could
stop it doing that and take a scan, but that seems to not work now.) If
anyone knows what to do to fix that, please share ...
Obviously, I want something that works with Windows 7 (32 bit).
Looking at what's available, then going to Canon's website to make sure
I can get drivers for 7-32 (that's another thing: with previous
computers, such sites have usually diagnosed my OS correctly, but this
time Canon and others think I'm running some version of W10), I find a
LiDE 20/25/35/60/90/100/200/210/220/400, and 4400F/5200F/8600F, all seem
to have drivers for 7-32 [please tell me if anyone knows that any of
those _don't_]. (LiDE 30/50, and N640P/N670U/N1240U/D1250U2 seem not to
have 7-32 drivers.)
Any idea why there are so many models? Obviously there are various
resolutions (and I think the F models - not LiDE, whatever that is -
have film-handling hardware), but it seems a very large number of
models!
Also, I read in one of the reviews that for most home-type scanners,
there's little point in having a resolution above a certain level (and
I'm talking about optical resolution, not that silly interpolated
thing), as the quality of the optics is such that you won't get any
improvement above a certain level (1200 or 2400, I think), just a bigger
file. Anyone have any view?

I feel your pain. I have a few scanners and they all have limited
driver support. It seems like they want you to buy a new scanner every
time you get a different OS. The hardware doesn't seem to change, just
the drivers.
That Vue Scan does support lots of old scanners but it might just be
cheaper to get a new scanner.

Ken Blake

2024-02-02 16:26:11 UTC

I don't think so. VueScan Standard is $49.95, and the cheapest scanner
I see on Amazon is the Canon LiDE at $57.58, and I don't know whether
it supports Windows 7. I've only used the trial version of VueScan
with my Canon LiDE 400 and so far I like what I see; it seems easier
to use than what comes with the scanner, and I may soon buy the
standard version. It comes with a 30-day trial version, but that
overlays its scans with a notice that it's the trial version, so it's
only good to see if you like it.

Ken Blake

2024-02-02 16:55:30 UTC

Post by Ken Blake

I bought the Basic Edition, which is only $25. The only important
thing it's lacking for me is the ability to save as pdf. But since
there are several free online jpg to pdf converters available (I tried
one and it worked fine), I saved the extra $25 for the standard
edition.

J. P. Gilliver

2024-02-02 17:10:26 UTC

In message <***@4ax.com> at Fri, 2 Feb
2024 09:55:30, Ken Blake <***@invalid.news.com> writes
[]

Post by Ken Blake
I bought the Basic Edition, which is only $25. The only important
thing it's lacking for me is the ability to save as pdf. But since
there are several free online jpg to pdf converters available (I tried
one and it worked fine), I saved the extra $25 for the standard
edition.

And there are plenty of PDF "printers" - I use PDF995; I think some
later versions of Office (and Windows, but I know we're in the 7 'group)
come with one, too. So I'd just "print" the JPEG (almost certainly from
IrfanView) to that.

I've never seen the advantage of PDF for _images_, and find it tedious
when people have (or send me) them as that; I end up doing the opposite
of you, and using an online (usually) PDF to image converter!

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

There is no honour to be had in not knowing a thing that can be known -
Danny Baker

J. P. Gilliver

2024-02-02 17:04:58 UTC

In message <***@4ax.com> at Fri, 2 Feb
2024 09:26:11, Ken Blake <***@invalid.news.com> writes
[]

Post by Ken Blake
I don't think so. VueScan Standard is $49.95, and the cheapest scanner

24.95 pounds here for "basic".

Post by Ken Blake
I see on Amazon is the Canon LiDE at $57.58, and I don't know whether

(That could be one of at least a dozen models of course!)

I'd almost certainly be buying second-hand - there are a few below 24.95
(including postage).

Post by Ken Blake
it supports Windows 7. I've only used the trial version of VueScan
with my Canon LiDE 400 and so far I like what I see; it seems easier
to use than what comes with the scanner, and I may soon buy the

I'm watching a couple of 400s - auctions ending Sunday and Monday. It
looks like a neat scanner. If I'm reading the Canon page correctly,
drivers for 7-32 _are_ available for it.

Post by Ken Blake
standard version. It comes with a 30-day trial version, but that
overlays its scans with a notice that it's the trial version, so it's
only good to see if you like it.

Yes, I've tried VueScan in the past (years ago, when someone had moved
from IIRR XP to 7), but don't think it gives me more than I'd want from
the manufacturer's driver.

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

There is no honour to be had in not knowing a thing that can be known -
Danny Baker

J. P. Gilliver

2024-02-02 16:24:50 UTC

[]

Post by J. P. Gilliver
Also, I read in one of the reviews that for most home-type scanners,
there's little point in having a resolution above a certain level (and
I'm talking about optical resolution, not that silly interpolated
thing), as the quality of the optics is such that you won't get any
improvement above a certain level (1200 or 2400, I think), just a bigger
file. Anyone have any view?

(Any thoughts on that?)

Post by g***@aol.com
I feel your pain. I have a few scanners and they all have limited
driver support. It seems like they want you to buy a new scanner every
time you get a different OS. The hardware doesn't seem to change, just
the drivers.
That Vue Scan does support lots of old scanners but it might just be
cheaper to get a new scanner.

In my case, it's for once that the scanner has died (at least, nine
times out of ten - or more - when connected, it runs up to the end and
keeps going, making unhappy noises). First time - that I can remember,
anyway - I've actually had one actually fail. (I'm guessing the fault is
trivial - probably just a track sensor loose - but am wary of trying to
open it, lest tiny bits fall where they shouldn't; there doesn't seem to
be a YouTube video, though the plethora of models doesn't help.) But
there seem to be plenty of s/h scanners for which a 7-32 driver _is_
available, for less than I think VueScan costs (let me just check: basic
edition 24.95 pounds) - yes, I can get a LiDE 20/25/35/60 or a 5200F for
less than that. (Anyone got any of those and got good/bad stories?)

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

In the beginning, Emacs created God.

Zaidy036

2024-02-02 21:58:35 UTC

Post by J. P. Gilliver
[]

(Any thoughts on that?)

also depends on how many scans you make. I do only 2 or 3 per month so
use VueScan and an old Epson Perfection 1650 and then do screen copy to
save or print.

Another alternative if sending to someone else is a smart phone.

Frank Slootweg

2024-02-03 16:39:29 UTC

[...]

John's current issue is the other way around, a new scanner on an old
OS (Windows 7, 32-bit).

As I just posted, I've been 'lucky' with the direction you mention, an
old scanner on a new OS. My EPSON PERFECTION V30 flatbed scanner started
its life on Vista, then 8.1 and now 11.

VanguardLH

2024-02-02 17:02:31 UTC

I had a Canon LiDe scanner several years ago. I thought all the LiDe
models were skinny, so you could slide them into a desk drawer (I had
mine in the middle drawer which has the least height since it's over my
legs). I'd take it out and connect when I wanted to scan instead of
always taking up space atop the desk. I also thought all the LiDe
models got their power only from a USB port, so not a lot of power
available (USB 2 is 1/2 watt). That puts all the LiDe models in one
category: skinny models that fit in a drawer, USB powered. Decide if
you want skinny to put in a drawer, or something that's fat atop the
desk. As I recall, mine broke when its light bar wouldn't move. I'd
hear the motor, but the bar barely jiggled.

When I went to the Canon site, took a bit to find any LiDe scanners.
Not listed under their Consumer category. Found 2 models under their
Office category: 300 and 400. The difference is the 400 at $20 more is
2 seconds faster to scan than the 300, and the 400's resolution is
4800x4800 versus the 300 at 2400x2400 (those are probably not true
resolutions, but interpolated). For documents, you'll probably not need
more than 300 dpi, but might go to 600. They call them "photo" scanners
instead of others they call document scanners. Interestingly they use
superscript footnote numbers on several statements in the product
description, but there are no matching footnotes to know their slant on
their claims.

The 300 download section lists Windows drivers for 11, 10, 8, 7, Vista,
Me, XP, 98, 95, and many Server versions. Same for the 400 model.

I guess the next category is multi-function. Do you want a scanner that
is separate of your printer, so if one fails the other still works?

The next category is whether or not you want an automatic document
feeder. I had a MP w/feeder desktop unit, and used the feeder maybe
twice (other than when I got it and just had to play with it).

Do you want a MP unit that also had faxing capability? Most computers
theses days don't come with an analog modem that can do faxing. You'd
have to buy a fax card to occupy a mobo slot. Or you get a standalone
unit that does the faxing (and printing, and scanning, and feeding).
You've told what you have or had, but not want you want in a new unit.
Your old Canon 656U is similar to their LiDe units: skinny, USB powered.
If that is what you want to stick with, there are only 2 models Canon is
selling now: 300 and 400 ($79 and $99, respectively, at Newegg, and $58
on sale now and $96, respectively, at Walmart). What added features you
want dictates what other models you get, like combining with a printer,
added a document feeder, adding faxing, increasing the document size,
like to legal.

As far as there being so many models for drivers, Canon has been in
business a long time, they have lots of old models out there, and they
provide drivers for all those old models (as long as the OS is still
supported). I'm sure you'd find a large number of drivers for HP and
Epson, too. Rather than "so many models" over so many years, go to
Canon's web site to see what they're selling now. You can find lots of
their old models on sale, but do you want to start with an old model?

J. P. Gilliver

2024-02-02 18:08:14 UTC

[]

(Any thoughts on that?)

Post by VanguardLH
I had a Canon LiDe scanner several years ago. I thought all the LiDe
models were skinny, so you could slide them into a desk drawer (I had

They seem to be.

Post by VanguardLH
mine in the middle drawer which has the least height since it's over my
legs). I'd take it out and connect when I wanted to scan instead of
always taking up space atop the desk. I also thought all the LiDe
models got their power only from a USB port, so not a lot of power
available (USB 2 is 1/2 watt). That puts all the LiDe models in one

The ones where I've figured out what the supply is, do seem to be - some
with the type B connector (like a printer), which I prefer as it's more
robust, some with a small one.

Post by VanguardLH
category: skinny models that fit in a drawer, USB powered. Decide if
you want skinny to put in a drawer, or something that's fat atop the
desk. As I recall, mine broke when its light bar wouldn't move. I'd
hear the motor, but the bar barely jiggled.

Maybe a stripped gear or snapped belt. But opening them up looks a pain.

Post by VanguardLH
When I went to the Canon site, took a bit to find any LiDe scanners.
Not listed under their Consumer category. Found 2 models under their

I'm looking under the support section, where I'm not having much
difficulty finding them.

Post by VanguardLH
Office category: 300 and 400. The difference is the 400 at $20 more is
2 seconds faster to scan than the 300, and the 400's resolution is
4800x4800 versus the 300 at 2400x2400 (those are probably not true
resolutions, but interpolated). For documents, you'll probably not need

I think the 400 at least really is that. From what I've been able to
determine: 20 600×1200, 25/35/50/60 1200×2400, 90/100 2400×4800, 220
2400×4800 or 4800×4800 (not sure), 400 4800×4800.

Post by VanguardLH
more than 300 dpi, but might go to 600. They call them "photo" scanners
instead of others they call document scanners. Interestingly they use
superscript footnote numbers on several statements in the product
description, but there are no matching footnotes to know their slant on
their claims.

Not unusual!

Post by VanguardLH
The 300 download section lists Windows drivers for 11, 10, 8, 7, Vista,
Me, XP, 98, 95, and many Server versions. Same for the 400 model.

All the ones above - and the 200/210 and 4400F/5200F/8600F, whose
resolution I don't have - have 7-32 drivers (some "ScanGear CS", some
model-specific).

I don't use the scanner much - mainly for keeping copies of documents,
for which as you say 300 is usually sufficient. I do scan the odd photo,
where more would be good - though for the prints I have, the quality is
such that _much_ more than, I don't know, 1200?, would just make larger
files for no benefit. Plus, that point that higher resolutions - even
optical - may not be worthwhile as the optics aren't that good; any
thoughts on that?

Post by VanguardLH
I guess the next category is multi-function. Do you want a scanner that
is separate of your printer, so if one fails the other still works?

Yes. I have a big old industrial colour laser printer (Samsung 775).

Post by VanguardLH
The next category is whether or not you want an automatic document
feeder. I had a MP w/feeder desktop unit, and used the feeder maybe
twice (other than when I got it and just had to play with it).

I agree, sounds like a nice toy but can't think I'd use it often enough
for the space and extra unreliability, and that's before considering
cost.

Post by VanguardLH
Do you want a MP unit that also had faxing capability? Most computers
theses days don't come with an analog modem that can do faxing. You'd
have to buy a fax card to occupy a mobo slot. Or you get a standalone
unit that does the faxing (and printing, and scanning, and feeding).

I don't think I've ever sent a fax on my own account - from home,
anyway; when in work I did a few, but not often. (I think there are
services who'll do faxes for you - OK, not cheap, but given how few I
send [0 so far], probably affordable.) And I work from laptop, so no
mobo slots. (You can probably get USB fax - you could MoDem.)
[]

Post by VanguardLH
As far as there being so many models for drivers, Canon has been in
business a long time, they have lots of old models out there, and they
provide drivers for all those old models (as long as the OS is still
supported). I'm sure you'd find a large number of drivers for HP and

I was surprised (and pleased) to see they still seemed to be supporting
7-32 across so many; the only ones (of those I found for sale) that
seemed not to were/are LiDE 30 and 50, N640P, N670U, N1240U, and
D1250U2.

Post by VanguardLH
Epson, too. Rather than "so many models" over so many years, go to
Canon's web site to see what they're selling now. You can find lots of
their old models on sale, but do you want to start with an old model?

Well, it isn't a matter of "starting" - for the small amount of scanning
I do, a replacement for the 656 will be fine - if it's one of the LiDE
models, it'll probably be newer than the 656 was anyway (except possibly
the 20 and 25).

For interest, I've experimented with two other kinds of scanners. I had
(still have) one of the ones like a wand/rod you scrape over the
document; that worked reasonably well, though tended to produce slightly
curved results on a full A4 or bigger document. The other sort is a
"mouse scanner" - Logitech, model 100 or 150. These are like a mouse -
actually, without the software running they _are_ a mouse - but with a
(just guessing by looking) 2 by ½ inch window in the bottom: you drag
them over a document. Obviously it's the software that does it really:
it joins together the drags, presumably by video processing. Doesn't
sound too hopeful, but actually I've been very impressed with how the
swipes suddenly snap into position when it realises part of a swipe
overlaps with a part you've already done. Trouble is it takes quite a
while and fiddling to scan a full A4 page (I think it can do up to A3!),
and the software sometimes crashes on me as well. Actually, just have a
look at

(ignore some
of his waffling) to get the idea. I'm quite impressed with it, and of
course it's very portable (comes with a cloth bag to keep it in, which
helps to keep the window clean).

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

There is no honour to be had in not knowing a thing that can be known -
Danny Baker

VanguardLH

2024-02-02 21:02:10 UTC

(Any thoughts on that?)

I only care about the true resolution. Interpolation is okay for text
documents using simple fonts, or when the original is a bit grainy (but
interpolation can make the copy better or worse). For photos, I never
used the scanner for those. Only images in documents might be included,
and I might go up to 600 dpi for those. If a document is going to
rescanned and rescanned, I use the highest native resolution available
when saving into a file. Interpolation is a means to bloat the specs,
and as you mention will bloat the output file to save all those extra
pixels.

Interpolation works by adding more pixels between the existing ones, and
overlapping to provide graduation. The extra pixels are an average
(there are different algorithms) between the real pixels in the CCD
array of the scanner's light bar.

If you use your own camera to take photos, it may have a higher
resolution than your scanner's true resolution. Using the scanner's
true resolution which is smaller would make your photo look more grainy.
However, for most pics you get from the web, they're less than 600, and
more like 72 dpi. Monitors are in the range of 67-100 dpi. So what you
could scan into a file isn't what you'll get to see on your monitor.

The standard DPI in Windows is 96. When you get a monitor with higher
resolution, the same number of pixels are used for each character, so
the characters look smaller on a high resolution monitor. To make text
more legible, you up the DPI, so more pixels are used to paint a
character at the same size. I upped DPI in my Windows installs to 150%
(144 DPI). There are still some non-DPI aware programs that don't work
well with a higher DPI. Text gets truncated, windows get truncated,
etc. I'm not talking about monitor resolution which you should always
set at the monitor's native resolution; else, you end up with artifacts,
like fuzziness and color tinging again due to interpolation. I'm
talking about DPI (dots per inch) which is how many pixels are used
within the same sized dimension.

Interpolation with scanners, just like with monitors, is averaging more
pixels where they weren't before.

https://computer.howstuffworks.com/scanner3.htm

Buy based on true resolution. Interpolated resolution can be handy, but
don't expect to it do miracles on less-than-perfect originals. It might
a scanned copy look better than the original, but if you scan it again
the results may not be so good. You're scanning fuzz atop more fuzz.

Maybe a stripped gear or snapped belt. But opening them up looks a pain.

You'd see a broken belt laying on the inside floor of the scanner. If
it isn't broke, the motor is probably too weak. There could also be
positioning sensors to detect to location of the light bar that have
failed, or misaligned.

Post by VanguardLH
When I went to the Canon site, took a bit to find any LiDe scanners.
Not listed under their Consumer category. Found 2 models under their

I'm looking under the support section, where I'm not having much
difficulty finding them.

Yep, for lots of old models. Are you planning on buying a Canon scanner
that has already been discontinued?

Post by J. P. Gilliver
I don't use the scanner much - mainly for keeping copies of documents,
for which as you say 300 is usually sufficient. I do scan the odd photo,
where more would be good - though for the prints I have, the quality is
such that _much_ more than, I don't know, 1200?, would just make larger
files for no benefit. Plus, that point that higher resolutions - even
optical - may not be worthwhile as the optics aren't that good; any
thoughts on that?

Digital 35mm has a resolution of 5.6K (5600x3620 pixels), or about 20
megapixels. On my old LG V20, it's camera has 8 MP. The Samsung Galaxy
S24 Ultra lists 4 resolutions:

https://www.gsmarena.com/samsung_galaxy_s24_ultra-12771.php

A scanner claiming 2400x2400 is only 5.7 MP, and that's interpolated.
What's the resolution of the device that sources the photo?

Way back when I had a Winmodem DSP analog modem card in a mobo slot, I
did some faxing. The recipients I can remember were gov't agencies.
They're very old school. Forget trying to convince that unencrypted
e-mail is more secure than unencrypted faxing. Hell, you mention e-mail
and they pause on the call.

Nowadays I don't do any local faxing. I use a faxing service, like eFax
(https://www.efax.com/efax-free). I have a free account. Any faxes
received will keep a copy in my online account, and a copy gets sent to
my e-mail address. I'm surprised the account is still alive (I just
checked) since it's been years since I last used it. That's just to
receive faxes for free up to 10 faxes per month. To send requires a
paid Plus service tier. Another I looked at was FaxZero. They
watermarked your sent fax (i.e., they spamify it), 5 fax sends per day,
and max of 1 cover page and 3 doc pages. They're for sending faxes, not
receiving, managing, or forwarding them. Another is GotFreeFax, but
just for sending, not receiving. You could combine services: eFax Free
for receiving, and one of the online fax send services. Just remember
that you're using a service to do faxing, and these are not encrypted
faxes (that requires cooperating matched encrypt fax machines at each
end), so anything in your received or sent faxes can be seen by the
service provider.

J. P. Gilliver

2024-02-02 21:58:05 UTC

(Any thoughts on that?)

I only care about the true resolution. Interpolation is okay for text

No, I wasn't talking about interpolation: IMO, interpolation is the
worst snake-oil to have ever hit scanners: doing something in the
scanner which could be done in the computer does nothing but make a
bigger file that has to be sent over the USB lead (or whatever). [OK,
the scanner firmware _may_ have a better interpolation _algorithm_. But
not by much.]

No, the thing I read was saying that in many scanners, the optics -
lenses, or whatever - in the scanner isn't of good enough quality that
having more optical resolution (sensor elements in the scanner bar,
and/or being able to move in tiny steps) doesn't produce any improvement
(just, again, a bigger file, same as interpolation, or almost the same).
I was wondering if anyone had any view on (or experience of) the
suggestion.
[]

Post by VanguardLH
Buy based on true resolution. Interpolated resolution can be handy, but

I would never do anything else. But the above suggestion is that "true
resolution" may be more than is necessary for the quality of the optical
components.
[]

Post by J. P. Gilliver
Maybe a stripped gear or snapped belt. But opening them up looks a pain.

Yes, a feedback track that has slipped (or the sensor that reads it).

Post by VanguardLH
When I went to the Canon site, took a bit to find any LiDe scanners.
Not listed under their Consumer category. Found 2 models under their

I'm looking under the support section, where I'm not having much
difficulty finding them.

Yep, for lots of old models. Are you planning on buying a Canon scanner
that has already been discontinued?

I'm not worried about whether it's been discontinued - I'm using Windows
7, after all (look where we're discussing this!); I just want to be sure
drivers are available to make it work with my laptop.

Digital 35mm has a resolution of 5.6K (5600x3620 pixels), or about 20

I presume "Digital 35mm" means digital cameras with a sensor about the
same size as the picture area (18 by 24 mm I think) on "35mm" (135
format) film.

Post by VanguardLH
megapixels. On my old LG V20, it's camera has 8 MP. The Samsung Galaxy
https://www.gsmarena.com/samsung_galaxy_s24_ultra-12771.php
A scanner claiming 2400x2400 is only 5.7 MP, and that's interpolated.
What's the resolution of the device that sources the photo?

The only photos I'd be scanning would be ones taken with film cameras
(and printed chemically). Where resolution has no meaning, until you get
to grain size.
[]

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Try to learn something about everything and everything about something.
-Thomas Henry Huxley, biologist (1825-1895)

VanguardLH

2024-02-03 18:50:31 UTC

Are you planning on buying a Canon scanner that has already been
discontinued?

I'm not worried about whether it's been discontinued - I'm using Windows
7, after all (look where we're discussing this!); I just want to be sure
drivers are available to make it work with my laptop.

While Canon provides drivers for old models to use on old Windows
versions, getting a discontinued model could mean no warranty. Scanners
are mechanical devices. The more you use, the sooner the death. Even
if you don't much use a scanner, it could die after a few uses if it had
a manufacturing defect. Using an old OS should dictate contraints on
buying new hardware except for driver availability which doesn't seem a
problem with Canon.

J. P. Gilliver

2024-02-03 21:51:39 UTC

Are you planning on buying a Canon scanner that has already been
discontinued?

I'm not worried about whether it's been discontinued - I'm using Windows
7, after all (look where we're discussing this!); I just want to be sure
drivers are available to make it work with my laptop.

While Canon provides drivers for old models to use on old Windows
versions, getting a discontinued model could mean no warranty. Scanners

It's more a matter of ensuring it will work with (has drivers for) my
OS.

Post by VanguardLH
are mechanical devices. The more you use, the sooner the death. Even
if you don't much use a scanner, it could die after a few uses if it had
a manufacturing defect. Using an old OS should dictate contraints on
buying new hardware except for driver availability which doesn't seem a
problem with Canon.

I'll be buying second-hand, at a price level where I won't expect any
warranty, other than that it is working at the point I get it! (My 656 -
which I did I think buy new [I have the box etc. anyway] - was long out
of warranty by the time it died.) I nearly got a 5200F - far better than
I was thinking of, and with film/slide holder - for a ridiculously low
price, but someone beat me to it. As you say, Canon seem good at having
drivers (for 7-32) for their older models, back to LiDE
20/25/35/60/90/100/200/210/220/400, though for some reason not LiDE 30
and 50. EPSON some, hp some, Mustek not really (maybe via VueScan, but I
don't really want to go that route).

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"When _I_ saw him, he was dead." "uh, he looked exactly the same when he was
alive, except he was vertical." (The Trouble with Harry)

Paul

2024-02-02 19:41:32 UTC

I'm looking to replace my Canon 656U (same as 650U other than silver case), which has developed the fault that whenever powered (by USB), it starts to track, until it reaches the end where it keeps going, making an unhappy noise. (It went through a phase where I could, by unplugging/replugging it and/or fiddling with the software, when I could stop it doing that and take a scan, but that seems to not work now.) If anyone knows what to do to fix that, please share ...
Obviously, I want something that works with Windows 7 (32 bit).
LiDE 20/25/35/60/90/100/200/210/220/400, and 4400F/5200F/8600F, all seem to have drivers for 7-32 [please tell me if anyone knows that any of those _don't_]. (LiDE 30/50, and N640P/N670U/N1240U/D1250U2 seem not to have 7-32 drivers.)
Any idea why there are so many models? Obviously there are various resolutions (and I think the F models - not LiDE, whatever that is - have film-handling hardware), but it seems a very large number of models!
Also, I read in one of the reviews that for most home-type scanners, there's little point in having a resolution above a certain level (and I'm talking about optical resolution, not that silly interpolated thing), as the quality of the optics is such that you won't get any improvement above a certain level (1200 or 2400, I think), just a bigger file. Anyone have any view?

The resolution, could be a function of the optics, but more normally
it's a function of the subject matter.

Newsprint for example, has a very coarse dot pitch. For Nyquist sampling
at 2x the dot pitch, you don't need much. The next level up, would be
the dot pitch of a "fine art" book. There are books of photographs
at the book store, which are "printed on better paper" and they use
a finer printing process. Maybe 300 to 600 DPI is good enough for those.

The picture quality does not improve all that much,
when sampling above Nyquist.

For film scanning, there isn't a dot pitch. It's "grain size" that
affects the scanning choice. And at some point the optical path
is the limitation, and so increasing the scanner resolution then
is mismatched with optics. If you have shit optics, maybe you
don't need to go above 4800, because there would be no improvement
in results by doing so.

How much of the film grain industry remains ? People with slide
collections sometimes convert them, and that would be one source of
demand.

An LIDE should be good enough for paper scanning, but for film,
you might want something else. Some people buy the old shoe-box
slide scanners off Ebay, for a one-off conversion project.

The D of the scanner is Density. It's a log scale. A D of 3.2 is typical
for commodity scanners. A D of 4.0 might be a better one, which can
"pull detail from shadows" in film scanning. That would be a contrast
ratio of 10,000.

The BPP depends on the ADC connected to the scanning device.
8 BPP is normal for commodity scanners, giving say, a 24 bit BMP image.
But scanners also claim to scan 16 BPP, and that's only possible if
there is a good ADC. I can offer 16BPP and do this 1010101010000000.
That's a 10 bit ADC with 6 bits "nailed to zero" :-) They've also
done that to audio paths, pretend to offer HD qualities, then nail
the LSBs to zero.

A CMOS scanner has no depth of field, and can't scan into the binding
of a book. A CCD scanner has better depth of field. But the text still
might not be captured all the way to the binding. Mine is a CCD, but
then, the scanning resolution isn't all that impressive, so what of it.

There might still be drum scanners (with a laser head), but those require
the stock to conform to the curvature of the drum. The drum rotates at
high speed, as the scanning head steps across the drum width. You may find
some review articles where an ordinary scanner, is compared to a drum scan,
to show what the flat bed is "missing".

Paul

J. P. Gilliver

2024-02-02 20:16:48 UTC

Post by J. P. Gilliver
I'm looking to replace my Canon 656U (same as 650U other than silver
case), which has developed the fault that whenever powered (by USB),

[]

Post by J. P. Gilliver
Obviously, I want something that works with Windows 7 (32 bit).

And that's _all_ I'm after, really - I was just a bit startled there
were so many models!
[]